Pages

Monday, August 08, 2011

Telangana 86: Democracy shuts its doors on Telangana

05 August
2011

Today, in a
landmark speech, the Home Minister of Indian Union, P Chidambaram, set a new and
dangerous precedent in the annals of Indian democracy. His speech urged the two warring parties, the
bully and the victim, to resolve the issue on their own and offered no
intervention from the Government of India.
He said, quite emphatically, that it is not his ministry’s
responsibility or the responsibility of the Government or the Parliament to
intervene to resolve the issue of Telangana, and left the contentious issue of
nearly sixty years to be resolved by the victims in Telangana by convincing the
bullies of Seemandhra.

This day
marks a new chapter in the history of Independent India. It deviates markedly from all earlier
precedents where Union Government took the responsibility of resolving the
regional disputes when they arose. When
Telanganas were being targeted by the Nizam’s forces the Government of India
intervened by sending police to disarm Nizam and annex Hyderabad State into
Dominion of India. When Andhras of
Madras State rose up in protest citing domination of Tamils, Nehru’s government
intervened to create a new state for Andhras.
When Maharashtrians fought for a separate state, Article 3 was invoked to
create two new states. In numerous
occasions, the Union Government and the courts of India intervened to settle
the riparian disputes that arose between the states.

Today, the Home
Minister of India has abandoned such a practice and sought refuge in nonintervention,
saying it is not their responsibility to provide a solution to a regional
dispute. The Government of India made it
clear that they don’t have anything to do with the current dispute over
formation of Telangana. In essence, New
Delhi orphaned Telangana without providing any recourse to justice.

When Telanganas
heard Home Minister speak nonchalantly in the Lok Sabha following the
impassioned speech from Sushma Swaraj, they could not believe how callous the Government
of India has become. They were left wondering
how and what happened to the democratic and constitutional methods that were earlier
employed to resolve regional disputes that arose in this country. They started to question their faith in the
democratic institutions of India.

The Home
Minister of India told the nation that it is the duty of Telugu people, composed
of two warring groups, to come together and find a solution. He said his government can only facilitate an
agreement between the two parties, but refused to step in to provide a solution. The UPA political leadership continues to
hold onto the pipe dream that miraculously, through some divine intervention,
the people of Telangana and Seemandhra would somehow bury their differences
that have been mounting up over the last sixty years, hug each other in a
sudden twist like in the Indian movies, and unanimously come to an agreement.

While making
such unrealistic suggestions, our beloved Home Minister might as well have directed
the 40 million people in Telangana to pray to Lord Venkateshwara and hope the
God himself descends to provide a solution to the current problem, instead of
wasting their time knocking on the doors of the government or approaching the courts
in India.

Our
leadership in New Delhi may require a course in history, a course in common
sense, and if possible a dose of wisdom, if such a medicine is found
somewhere. There are many instances when
two people cannot resolve issues no matter what. That’s why we have need arbiters in the form
of courts or governments to resolve such situations. If all the warring people were asked to
resolve the issues by coming to a common ground on their own, there would no
need for courts in this country. There
would be no need for an arbiter – all contentious issues will get solved miraculously
without any intervention.

Indian
Constitution clearly prescribes the method to resolve regional disputes when regions
within the state do not come to an agreement, and it is the duty of the
Government to employ those methods to bring resolution. The role of Government of India has always
been to impart the solution judiciously following the prescribed democratic and
constitutional guidelines, with or without the support of all political parties.

The
expectation from the current UPA political leadership that all political
parties should agree on the same solution is unreasonable and in fact quite
impossible. There are various examples
in the past where a consensus amongst all political parties was not a
precondition to resolve the contentious issues.
For example, without the support of RJD, the prominent political party
of Bihar, a bill was passed in the Parliament to create Jharkhand out of
Bihar. Nuclear Bill was passed in the
Parliament though there was massive opposition from the allies of the ruling
party.

In his
speech in Lok Sabha, P Chidambaram resorted to a mischievous and dangerous Machiavellian
trickery that may completely change the face of Indian democracy in future. He started counting the number of political
parties in Andhra Pradesh and divided them into three groups, those who support
formation of Telangana, those who do not, and those who have not made their
stance clear. Introducing a strange and
alien notion of counting political parties instead of counting the number of
elected representatives, the Home Minister of India has completely and
permanently altered Indian democracy and its basic ethos to set it on a new and
ominous course. I am not sure if the Harvard educated Home
Minister of Republic of India realizes this, but Indian Parliament is not a
party-based democracy as he stated in his speech, but it is a parliamentary
democracy, in which the opinion of individual elected leader is paramount and
not the opinion of a political party. Indian
Constitution does not recognize political parties as legal representatives of
the people. We don’t count the support
in the number of political parties but we count the number of elected leaders.

Honorable
Home Minister of India has said that ‘there are eight recognized political
parties in Andhra Pradesh’. While three of
them support, one opposes, and four have not taken a decision as yet. Since four parties have not made up their
mind, he wants to wait for their decision before he can proceed further. Home
Minister has introduced a new step in the process of creation of new states,
called ‘the conclusion of consultation process’ which, according to him, takes
precedence over the impending democratic aspirations clearly articulated from
the region of Telangana. This new step runs
against the intention of the architects of Indian Constitution who made it
clear that the will of the people of the region is the sole criterion for the
Union Government to initiate the process of state formation.

Does P
Chidambaram realize that these four parties are using this attitude of the UPA
political leadership to actually delay the decision process, so that no state
formation can happen? Does he not
realize that a majority can use this excuse to delay the formation of Telangana
forever? Doesn’t Article 3 clear empower
the Parliament to go ahead and reorganize the states without getting the
consent from the State Assembly? Didn’t Indian Union break up the Hyderabad State
though there was no process of consultation?
Wasn’t Telangana merged with Andhra State without any formal consent of
Telanganas?

Can we know
why we are seeking consensus amongst all political parties? Is that a
reasonable expectation when the warring groups are two regions and not two
political parties? The Home Minister
keeps stressing that the ‘main political party and main opposition party in Andhra
Pradesh are divided’. Divided along
what lines, we may ask? It is evident
that the elected leaders of Andhra Pradesh are completely divided along the
regional lines irrespective of their political, religious, or caste
affiliation? Doesn’t that tell us something
about a democratic aspiration of a region which is now riding so high that the
usual affiliations that dominate Indian politics are now thrown into the
background? If the Home Minister had
known how Indian democracy works he would have counted the number of elected
representatives from Telangana who support the formation of new state, instead
of counting the political parties.

P Chidambaram
has set in a new criterion for formation of new states. He expects that all political parties should
support formation of Telangana and then he expects that each political party
should in turn convince its members to come to the same opinion. What he is basically expecting is that 100%
of the elected members of Andhra Pradesh should accept the decision of
formation of Telangana. Such unanimity
is unheard of in a democracy. With that
kind of expectation one basically rules out the possibility of formation of
Telangana forever. In fact, it will
ensure that no state formation will happen in this country for all times
to come.

The
architects of Indian Constitution understood the implications of majority
suppressing a minority forever in the State Assembly. Therefore, they gave complete powers to the
Parliament to take a decision without seeking the approval from the state. The Honorable Shri K. Santanam, one of the
architects of Indian Constitution, while rejecting the proposal where the consent
from State Assembly is necessary for the formation of new state, writes:

it
would mean that no minority in any State
can ask for separation of territory, either for forming a new province or for
joining an adjacent State unless it can get a majority in that State
legislature… Take the case of the madras Province for instance. The Andhras
want separation. They bring up a resolution in the madras legislature. It is
defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhras is
blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra
province.

…instead of democracy we will have absolute
autocracy of the majority in every province and State.

The methods
that were available for creation of Andhra State are now denied to the people
of Andhra Pradesh. Two legal cases which
challenged the authority of Parliament to take unilateral decisions without
taking consent from State Assembly have established that it is the right of the
Parliament to create new states and that it is not mandatory for the State
Assembly to provide the approval. The aspiration of
the people of the land is the most important reason why a state should be
formed. The message
is loud and clear. But our Home Minister
refuses to hear it. The whole reason why Telanganas
want a new state is to escape from the subjugation of the majority of
Seemandhras. It is unreasonable to ask
Telanganas to convince and impress upon the majority to support them in their
fight for statehood.

Over the
last two years, people of Telangana have dealt so many betrayals, got affected
by so many political machinations of subterfuge and deception, that they have
been forced to grow up and mature up on an accelerated path. They have lost their innocence. They no longer look at the Indian Flag misty
eyed full of foolish national fervor. They
are reminded of the number of times this country has betrayed them, deceived
them and played with them. With nearly
600 suicides recorded in the last two years for the cause of Telangana, the
frustrations amongst 40 million people are running high. The people are despondent and lost all hope
because their dear India has failed to deliver justice and instead turned its
back leaving the wailing, weeping and suffering victim to fend for itself.

The history
will not forgive this generation of Telangana leaders if they do not deliver
upon the new state to rescue and save Telangana people from further
subjugation. Forty years from now, a new
generation of Telanganas will call us the spineless betrayers.

No longer can we entertain childish and
foolish dreams that this government can be humane, that this administration is
equipped to solve our problems. If we still
continue to profess faith in the current leadership in India to resolve the
issue, then we are not just foolish but we are being suicidal. The current administration says they can’t
save us from the bully. They expect us
to grow in strength to combat the bully on our own. They don’t want to intervene. They don’t think it is their responsibility
to deliver justice. All the courts are
closed to us. All the administration
offices are closed to us. All the
constitutional guarantees and protections are closed to us. Democracy has shut its door on our face and
we are left in darkness, alone, scared, and helpless.

There are
very few times in the history where a certain group of people are left in such
miserable state, stranded, left on their own to fight an unreasonable and
merciless enemy, like Jews in Nazi Germany, or Tibetans in China. Nobody offers help while the enemy continues
to suppress the victims. The Home
Minister has put the onus of resolving the issue onto Telangana people. We are on our own and there is no help
coming.

Rise O
Telangana! Rise! Rise like you have
never risen before. Create space for
yourself. Create a voice for yourself. Let’s force this country and the world to
pay attention to our plight and grant Telangana. Raise your voice now. Let it be heard loud and clear, in the
callous corridors of Indian Parliament, let it be heard in White House and
Kremlin. Fight your opponent within and
your opponent outside. That’s what the
Union Government of India is telling you.
It is telling you that your constitutional methods are of no use. It is telling you that unless you resort to
the same tactics other regions have resorted to you will not be given a new
state.

- Consensus or agreement may be desirable but not mandatory in the matter of state formation- The engineered collapse of the December 7 consensus is based on regions, not parties. PC does not want to acknowledge- Even in cases that require agreement, the federal Government must act as an arbitrator.- If Congress desires a broad agreement for political reasons, they should have initiated a time bound process on December 10 (or 23)

It is clear that the Indian Government and the ruling party have both failed to fulfill their responsibilities. Even more importantly, they do not accept the ball is in their court.

I agree with the spirit of your last paragraph. I always believed Telangana can only be achieved on the streets, not through back room manouevres.

What next? For start, we should refuse to recognize the so called Andhra Pradesh. The state no longer has any legitimacy.

We must call upon the resigned MLA's to set up a "people's assembly". If they fail to do so or sellout, we must do so ourselves. The deadline for this is August 17.

The enemy is strong and armed. They are laying the ground for a "great betrayal". We must remain firm against deceipt, treachery and opportunism.

One point of divergence: I do not agree "constitutional methods are of no use". Bandhas, dharnas, paralell assemblies, rasta rokos are all constituitional methods. (Some guys may not agree but remember pigs can't read the consitution).

I would suggest "constitutional methods may not be adequate; all reasonable methods are acceptable in a just fight against an illegitimate ruler"

One point of divergence: I do not agree "constitutional methods are of no use". Bandhas, dharnas, paralell assemblies, rasta rokos are all constituitional methods.

While I agree that bandhs, dharnas, rasta rokos, hunger strikes, are 'democratic', I do not necessarily call them 'constitutional methods'. That does not make them 'anti-constitutional' either. So, I am emphasizing that not all democratic methods are considered formally as constitutional methods. That does not necessarily make them anti-constitutional.

- Consensus or agreement may be desirable but not mandatory in the matter of state formation- The engineered collapse of the December 7 consensus is based on regions, not parties. PC does not want to acknowledge- Even in cases that require agreement, the federal Government must act as an arbitrator.- If Congress desires a broad agreement for political reasons, they should have initiated a time bound process on December 10 (or 23)

Sujai, the constitution derives its legitimacy from the people ("we the people.."). This means while the state can only do what is expressly permitted by the constitution, the citizens are free to do anything that is not expressly prohibited.

Its pointless to deny the fact that KCR has been spearheading the fight for Telangana. But the misfortune for us is he believes only in manipulation and resignations and it has failed miserable. Its by his fast that the movement took off for Telangana. As long as we dont recognise that Telangana was deceived always by the Congress since the time of merger, we are going get royally screwed.I keep seeing so many organisations for Telangana formed. But none of them are able to do anything. We have to realise that only by agitation can we get what we want. Not for two or three days and then a gap, but for longer periods.We cant blame anyone else, but ourselves. Like idiots we keep electing Congress, and ofcourse KCR too for providing such poor leadership. Forget the Congress, let it be dumped into sewage gutter. Forget about parliament. Only option left for is agitation and bring the Indian govt. to knees.As you have mentioned in the article, i really dont care what happens to the country, when it doesnt even care for our wants. Why should we bother about India, but lets fight for Telangana.

@Vishal, if u do not care about India, get out of India. Is this anti-India forum now? If Gujarat/Bombay was important, why would Patel fight for India freedom? Sujai:Sure, go ahead and try to paint the picture that democracy has failed, violence in the only option etc etc. You will lose BJP, Communists and all India support.

Sujai-In a large scale conflict like this, why cann`t Telangana approach Supreme Court in interpreting the constitution for the government. We have so many instances of `judicial activism`, where large scale public interests are involved, court interpreting the constitutional provisions, if something is going wrong and directs the government of its responsibility.It is clear that our beloved & prestigious Home Mister of Government of India, unable to understand the constitutional provisions and mis-interpreting it and bending it weirdly to its convenience. This attitude is terribly bad. This is a threat to Indian democracy. Judiciary cannot direct the government in separating the state directly, but it can interpret the constitution rightly, reiterate and uphold the constitutional provisions and remind the union government of its responsibility. This is the high time the democratic institutions set an example when government is involved in wrong-doing and shouldering-off its responsibility.What is preventing Telangana from activating the Judiciary for a long hearing, when it is clear that the government is failing?

"Sure, go ahead and try to paint the picture that democracy has failed, violence in the only option etc etc. You will lose BJP, Communists and all India support"

No one is advocating (atleast so far) violence as the only option. However it is clear that రాజకీయ పోరాటం ("political approach") has failed and can not be relied any further. It is now time to take up ఉద్యమబాట ("agitational route).

Civil disobediance (a la mode Gandhi), Tahrir square style sit-ins or Gujjar style rail rokos will not result in loss of support from the all India players.

My name is KP and I follow your blog. I don't know if this is appropriate venue to request this, but would you please write your opinion about 498(A) dowry harassment case. You might have heard about lot of false allegations based on this case. I don't want this law to be removed as I still believe that there are lot more women are suffering because of dowry. But there are some cases where men are extorted for money. I am one of those victim. I have asked several lawyers if there is procedure exist to sign a contract by both parties that no dowry is involved during marriage. This won't help me but for others who are going to get married. They said any such contract wouldn't protect anyone from 498(A). My big concern is the law is completely written for majority of the cases under the assumption women never lie and they put their family ahead of their personal motives. I am doing my own research and would be great if you can shed some light on it.

i think it is the other way roundtelangana closed its doors to democracy when they *preventd jaggu and chandu naidu fropm touring in their region*when they assaulted non local leccturers in ou*when they burn buses at the drop of a hat*when they demolished statuesand the list goes on

similarly, seemandhra shut its doors to democracy when*they made a 180 degrees u turn on december 10th 2009*they are forcing an entire region to stay with them against their wishes

You can say that currently the both sides closed the doors to democracy.

But you should also understand that the very same democracy didnt help Telangana in the first place when the seemandra violated the merging agreement (Gentlement's agreement) and showed middle finger(by not accepting the mistake). When the democracy didnt help Telangana, why should Telangana respect it?

In the same way if seemandra expects the democratic behaviour from Telangana, why dont they show us the real meaning of democracy in there actions?

I don't know if this is appropriate venue to request this, but would you please write your opinion about 498(A) dowry harassment case.

Though I support the law that protects the women from harassment from men in principle, I have started to form serious doubts on the efficacy of 498(A). I understand that it has been misused a lot and I know of few cases where the husband and the family of the husband were harassed under the pretext of this law. The modern criminal justice has to take into account the universally agreed principle that it is OK to let go ten criminals so that no innocent is punished. I am beginning to believe that this is one criminal law which may be prosecuting innocents.

I do not write about a topic unless I have a clear stand on the topic. 498(A) is one such topic where I have not made my stance clear. Though I sympathize with you and your case, and I know of really good friends who have been subject to the same harassment, I did not get a chance to dwell deep into the issue as yet. Therefore, I am not able to write an article on this at this point of time. Hope you understand.

Prof Vishweshwar Rao stated today that once T is formed he would like the educational institutes in T to be owned by T people. I am sad that such a moron was a professor at OU.

He argues that these institutes are making money? so what? they are not doing charities. it is not mandatory for anyone to join them. all T kids should boycott these institutes? why aren't they doing that.

I sincerely request Prof Rao to lead a happy and contented retired life.

any seemandhraite who hurts telanganaites in SA are, in my opinion idiots of the highest order.instead, they should have quiestioned telangana leaders(and NOT assaluted) who visit their places.recently madhu yashki and komatireddy were in tirumala,jana reddy visited anantapur, and so on

As usual, an exercise in intellectual masturbation. Sujai is the quintessential Don Quixote who is on the lookout for larger than life villains. If they are not around, he will charge at windmills.

The fundamental issue here is not whether Assembly resolution is necessary for creating a state or not. If your ludicrous logic is stretched to its illogical limits, then the question arises whether any group of people can demand a state on the same ground.

Let's say Muslims who constitute around 40 percent of Hyderabad would like to have a state of their own in the old city. Aren't they entitled for the same, going by your logic? Besides, the arguments for self-rule, reinstating the old Hyderabad state, cultural, linguistic and religious differences suit them as well. They are a minority and they are backward too.

That is exactly I was talking. You are talking like you have two tongues. You say that incident(Eenadu news) is wrong and at the same time you trying to justify by comparing it with incidents happened in Telangana. That is really bad.

When SA people do atleast one single attack on Telangana@ in Seemandra then they have no moral right to question the attacks/threats on Seemandra@ in Telangana.

What ever the attacks happened on SA people in TG has some background story(mahboobnagar dsp), none of us really know that it happened really because of region conflict. It could be personal differences and later colored it with regional conflict.

Any way as of my knowledge till now no TG people simply go to SA people and beat them up(like Eenadu news and the link I mentioned above).

Let's say Muslims who constitute around 40 percent of Hyderabad would like to have a state of their own in the old city. Aren't they entitled for the same, going by your logic?

They could be. They can get there own state if the are able to get the approval in the Parliament. That is exactly we are asking. Put the bill in Parliament, you can defeat the bill so that you can shut our mouths. All we ask is to put the bill and let total India(not just SAs) decide our fate. That is what the Indian constitution saying and we are asking to execute it.

reinstating the old Hyderabad state,Dont say you just came out from a cave. We are not asking to reinstate Hyderabad state, we are asking to reinstate the Telangana state which was suggested by Fazal Ali Commission.

the arguments for self-rule, reinstating the old Hyderabad state, cultural, linguistic and religious differences suit them as well. They are a minority and they are backward too.

A MLA means he didn't descended from god. From several decades we are seeing all good and bad MLAs. In my opinion kicking a person is lot more worse sin than threatening.

For example, Bin Laden used(on behalf of all muslims in the world) to threaten to destroy USA and its people. How would you react if USA start killing all Muslims in the world because of this? Ofcourse Bin Ladan has lot more fans in Muslims community, but still this do not justify killing muslims.

If you still want to argue please move the topic to latest blog post, I wont be checking this thread later.

heights of ironyvijashanthi who cant even speak a single sentence in telangana slang became famous by "prathighatana" film. as far as in remember, it was the first film in which one of the villans spoke in telangana slang.and she acted as a protaganist in that film.today she considers herself as a reincarnation of rani rudrama devi.her career reached a peak with osey ramulamma film where she played a downtrodden victim fighting against the "doras".today one dora onsider her as his sister.

by the way, i wonder if tommorow i act as shirdi sai baba or shivaji in a film or drama, can i become an m.p. in maharashtra SOLELY on that basis???

because vijayashanthi, though being a non telanganaite got democratically elected as m.p here only because she made herself popular as a telangana women in osey ramulamma film.no other extra qualification i suppose

Dear Commenters:Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.